Alistair Darling: Absolutely. The Government and the Scottish Executive have targets to maintain and expand the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources. However, as I have said before, it is important that we generate electricity from a range of sources, so that we do not become over-dependent on any single one, which would be very risky. The whole point of the review is to have a grown-up discussion about what is best for Scotland. It is simply not possible to have an energy policy in which every option is ruled out, which is the position into which Opposition parties have more or less all three got themselves.

Michael Connarty: Is the Minister aware that, when I have met heavy energy users in my constituency such as BP, which has sold the Grangemouth refinery to Ineos, and KemFine, which will have heat and power plants, they tell me that they are counted as being in breach of the 1997 emission regulations for SO 2 every 15 minutes, whereas under the European directive, their competitors are in breach only once every hour. That means that they are four times more penalised—they cannot use fuel oil, which is a cheaper replacement for gas—than their competitors. In the forthcoming revision in the new directive, will the Government consider levelling the playing field and allowing heavy users in Britain with heat and power plants to use fuel oil in the same way as users can in the EU?

Anne McIntosh: The Minister is tackling the problem of legal aid in criminal cases by reintroducing the means-testing that this Government scrapped, but at the same time there is also enormous pressure on the civil legal aid budget. The hon. Lady has said that many parts of the country are "legal deserts" when it comes to civil legal aid, so why is she not addressing both problems with the utmost priority?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for letting me have an advance copy of his statement and the Green Paper.
	We broadly welcome the thrust of what the Secretary of State has said and we will study with great care the detail of the Green Paper. The world of work and the global economy are changing rapidly, and Britain's future prosperity depends on harnessing the skills and abilities of all its people. We cannot afford, either in social or in economic terms, to leave 2.7 million people abandoned on long-term benefits.
	Incapacity benefit has operated as a crude system that condemns hundreds of thousands of people who have something to offer to inactivity, deprivation and social exclusion. It creates and perpetuates dependency and squanders ability. It is failing individuals, it is failing our economy, and it is failing our society. It is no longer fit for purpose. So we welcome the Secretary of State's shift of emphasis to the abilities and skills that people have rather than the disabilities that they suffer.
	Let me be clear where we stand: we believe that work works. For those who can work, it restores self-esteem, it re-includes them in the social fabric of everyday life and it rescues them from the trap of long-term benefit dependency. It is the job of policy makers to ensure that work also pays—that the perverse disincentives of a bureaucratic benefits system are removed, so that the phenomenon of the benefit claimant who wants to work and who can work but who risks being worse off by doing so is consigned to history.
	The Secretary of State has been in his post for only four months, but his Government have been there for nearly nine years. We like much of what we have heard today, but he will forgive me if I say that we have heard much of it before. Much of what he has said was trailed in the five-year plan; we were promised this Green Paper before the summer recess. Further back, at the 1997 general election, Labour proclaimed itself the party of welfare reform, but while the Labour Government have done "sweet nothing"—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Those are not my words but the words of his own Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform. While the Labour Government have done "sweet nothing", total numbers claiming incapacity benefit have gone up, the numbers claiming for more than five years have gone up, the number of young people under 25 claiming has gone up by 70 per cent., and the number of people claiming on the grounds of mental and behavioural problems has doubled. So we will take no lectures on legacies from the right hon. Gentleman. The test of this Secretary of State will be whether he at last can start to deliver where his predecessors failed to do so.
	Unfortunately for the Secretary of State, his plans are presented against a backdrop of a slowing economy, steadily rising unemployment and an unprecedented funding crisis in NHS trusts, all of which will make it much harder now than it would have been a couple of years ago to achieve the laudable objectives of rehabilitating people and then getting them back into work.
	We have not yet had time to analyse the Green Paper in detail, but we have heard enough to identify some of the key areas where we will want to satisfy ourselves that the small print matches the headline rhetoric. Reform of the system so that it delivers a focus on what people can do, rather than what they cannot do, will require changes to the personal capability assessment, as the Secretary of State said. It will also require a change in the mindset of the tens of thousands of people who administer the system. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how the personal capability assessment will be reformed, in particular, to make what is still primarily a physical capacity test more responsive to the high levels of mental illness among claimants?
	Effective early intervention in respect of new claimants is the key to catching them before they become trapped in benefit dependency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that prompt and early medical assessment, coupled with the availability of rehabilitation resources, is the key? How will those resources be delivered, given the pressure that primary care trusts are under? Will he buy in NHS services with Department for Work and Pensions funding, or will he buy in rehabilitation services from providers in the private sector? Can he assure the House that he does have, somewhere in his locker, a more subtle approach to the vital question of engaging GPs in the early intervention process than that of offering them cash inducements?
	We will study the way in which the proposals, as well as dealing with new claimants, address the needs of the 2.7 million people currently on incapacity benefit. The Secretary of State may be tempted to concentrate on new claimants, but if the new focus is the right one it would be a betrayal both of those who are already on incapacity benefit and of the taxpayers funding them not to apply the same work-oriented approach to them. Off-flow rates have decreased by a third since 1997; will he set himself a specific target for getting current incapacity benefit claimants back into work?
	A couple of weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman identified 100 constituencies with the highest concentration of incapacity benefit claimants, which we cross-correlated with job vacancy figures. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that those constituencies have very few job vacancies—in fact, there are only a quarter as many job vacancies as there are incapacity benefit claimants. Does he recognise that in those areas simply refocusing and retraining people to exploit the skills and abilities that they have will not necessarily result in their finding work? How will he deal with the geographical mismatch of work opportunities and incapacity benefit claimants?
	Can the Secretary of State guarantee some concrete and effective measures that will ensure that private and voluntary sector organisations are able to compete on a level playing field with public sector organisations? The evidence for the contribution that they can make is clear in the results of the new deal for disabled people—a programme that has been substantially delivered by private and voluntary sector contractors—but the National Audit Office report shows that the playing field is still tilted against private and voluntary sector organisations when contracts are placed. Only if that bias is removed can such organisations play their full role—the role that the right hon. Gentleman says he wants them to play. What specifically is he doing to deal with that matter and is he willing to spend some of his political capital standing up to those who will no doubt fight tooth and nail to preserve the predominance of public sector provision in this area?
	In the long run, reducing the number of people on incapacity benefit will save substantial sums of public money, but in the short term significant investment of resources will be required. Can the Secretary of State tell the House over what period the reforms that he is proposing will become self-financing?
	The right hon. Gentleman referred in his statement to incapacity benefit as masking long-term unemployment figures. Can he confirm that claimants of his new benefit will be included in the unemployment count?
	Finally, it has been reported in the press that the implementation of the proposals that the Secretary of State has outlined today will depend on the installation of a major new IT system. Is that true? If so, given the history of problems with IT systems in his Department, what reassurance can he give the House that the bold initiatives that he outlined will not be beset by the same kind of IT problems and delays as we have seen in the past?
	The Secretary of State deserves credit for finally grasping the nettle of incapacity benefit reform, but the true test of his resolve is yet to come. Will he hold firm to the principles that he outlined today? Will he resist the temptation to tack and to trim in response to Labour Back-Bench demands? Will he take effective action to bring about the increase in private and voluntary sector involvement that he says he wants? If he performs on all those issues, we will support his proposals and work towards a consensus that is not afraid to say that for all who are capable of work, work is the best option, for individuals, society and Britain's future prosperity.

Peter Kilfoyle: Given that last year the Secretary of State's Department closed the biggest employer in my constituency, an area of high unemployment, and is now busy closing the jobcentre in Walton, the right hon. Gentleman will forgive my scepticism about where and how these jobs will be delivered.
	I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would clarify one point. The figure of £2.7 million is constantly bandied about. Does it refer to claimants and recipients of incapacity benefit, or only to claimants? If it refers only to claimants, what is the true figure for recipients?

John Hutton: My hon. Friend is right: the Department is currently undergoing a major reorganisation of its Jobcentre Plus services. It is also a major investment, however. We are spending more than £2 billion on trying to improve the service for his constituents and others. As my hon. Friend will know, that involves change. I entirely respect the position that he takes in relation to his constituency, but we are trying to improve the service nationally, and have set out a course of action that we think will achieve that.
	In relation to my hon. Friend's specific point about the 2.7 million figure, 2.74 million people are currently in receipt of either the means-tested income support element, which supports those on incapacity benefit, or contributory incapacity benefit. I have made it clear today that we want to reduce that figure, and I hope that he will work with me to make sure that we do.

Andrew Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks a few moments ago. I welcome the measured way in which he has brought forward this statement. In particular, I welcome the extension that he has announced of the successful pathways to work programme to the whole country. Does he agree that availability of good-quality rehabilitation and a continuing drive against discrimination in the workplace are crucial for the confidence of benefit recipients and for the prospects of success in helping more of them into jobs? Can he tell the House a bit more about rehabilitation and other support services that will reassure people that this is about helping them forward?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We should wait to see what the employment advisers can do for patients in primary care trusts. I am confident that they will be able to make a significant difference and provide more choice for people, rather than people being presented just with the unpalatable prospect of being signed off and going on to benefit. We should be able to do more for people in that situation. I hope that the other potential spin-off benefit of putting employment advisers into GP practices will relieve some of the pressure and work load on GPs themselves.

Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that persons who own their own homes and are in receipt of State Pension should automatically receive Council Tax Benefit; to require local authorities to inform all such persons about their rights to Council Tax Benefit; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill has all-party support. It is about an incredible Government IOU, and about giving money back to home-owning pensioners. It is not as though the Government do not want to give back the money involved, as they say that they have it and want to give it back. The people to whom it is owed—pensioners on pension credit—do not know that it is theirs or that it is owed to them, yet they are among the least able people in our communities to afford to lose out on it.
	What is the problem? Specifically, it is the payment of council tax benefit, billions of pounds of which is going unclaimed. Pensioners deserve the benefits to which they are entitled and the tax relief to which they have contributed during their working lives.
	The numbers are staggering. According to the most recent figures revealed by the Government, pensioners miss out each year on a cut to their council tax bill worth an average £426. Four pensioners out of 10 miss out on the total of £750 million in council tax benefit that goes unclaimed each year, and fewer than half of all home-owning pensioners claim the money that they should get. The money is like a lottery ticket that has fallen behind the sofa.
	This weekend, there will be huge publicity for the EuroMillions lottery jackpot, in which the prize is more than £100 million. Many pensioners will probably buy a ticket, and the chances are that they will not win. Yet council tax benefit worth 750 times the value of the winning lottery ticket is unclaimed every week, every month, every year. Why? The money goes unclaimed because the onus is on pensioners to claim it. Yet most do not know they are owed it. The Government say that pensioners can call up the Department for Work and Pensions or visit it or go online. But why would they, if they do not know that they are owed almost £500 a year?
	The onus should not be on pensioners to jump hurdles to make a claim. It should be the other way round. The Government should be obliged to make claiming as straightforward as possible to enable pensioners to claim the missing £750 million. If one owns one's own home, one qualifies, but there is no box on the council tax bill that one can tick. There should be. If one receives pension credit, one qualifies, but there is no box to tick on that paperwork for council tax relief. There should be. It is a scandal that some of the people who most need the Government's help are being left to second-guess the system. What makes it a scandal is not that the money is not there or that Ministers do not want to give it away, but simply that no one seems to agree on how it should be given back.
	Even if pensioners know that they can get the benefit, how easy is it to claim? It is not easy at all. My research assistant and I tried to work through the process. We Googled council tax benefit, and the BBC website came up, promising that I could
	"download claim forms for some benefits, obtain leaflets, publications and other information, including details of your social security office"
	by going to the DWP website. Well, I went, and I searched for council tax benefit. There were no results.
	I went to the section for pensioners. Council tax is not even listed. I went back to the part on professionals and advisers on the Department's home page. I got tantalisingly close but sadly got only the "Adjudication and Operations Circulars for Council Tax Benefit", dating back to 2001. I finally found the form by using the A to Z index. There is no clear explanation of council tax relief for pensioners, and only one mention:
	"Unless you are aged 60 or over and receive the guarantee credit of Pension Credit, savings over £16,000 usually mean you cannot get Council Tax Benefit."
	That hardly screams out to pensioners to come and claim their tax relief.
	The form is 40 pages long. It is not written in plain English. It asks about self-employment, dependants and savings, none of which is relevant or specific to pensioners and council tax benefit. It would be easier to keep buying the lottery tickets.
	Yet, frustratingly, Ministers are convinced that the system is working and that there is no need for a tick-box. Why are they convinced of that? I have no idea, because what has happened since I first raised the issue in the House almost two years ago is that the amount going unclaimed has remained almost the same. When I questioned the Prime Minster about why half of home-owning pensioners are failing to get council tax relief, he said:
	"Of course we support the principle of getting as many people as possible the benefits to which they are entitled, and we have made certain changes both to the forms that people have and in relation to the information campaign . . . of course we want to ensure that . . . people . . . actually get to them."—[Official Report, 8 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1168.]
	That echoed the concerns of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in discussions with me when I proposed a private Member's Bill on the matter, which ran out of parliamentary time.
	I fully accept that the Government are concerned, but their solution is unimaginative and uninspiring. In March 2004, Ministers undertook a publicity campaign, with flyers being sent to 20,000 organisations. It did not work. A year later when my private Member's Bill came to the House, the unclaimed council tax relief stood at £750 million. In response to my Bill, the then Secretary of State told me that adverts would be placed in the regional press calling on pensioners to claim. I did not see the adverts; I did not hear about the adverts. Clearly large numbers of pensioners never saw them.
	Publicity campaigns alone often do not work. They are ad hoc. They are a scattergun approach to get people the help they need. A pensioner who does not read a particular newspaper one day or pick up a particular leaflet one week or listen to a particular radio programme one weekend is unlikely to get the benefit to which he or she is entitled. Yet that is what was happening to 1.4 million pensioners every year after the second publicity campaign in response to my private Member's Bill. Just before Christmas, when I decided to reintroduce this Bill, BBC News online was reporting Age Concern as highlighting that 1.4 million eligible older people miss out on council tax benefit, resulting in up to £750 million remaining unclaimed each year. It said that the average amount unclaimed was £7.50 a week. Those are not my sums or even the charity's sums. Apparently they are based on conversations with Department for Work and Pensions officials and they are the DWP's figures. But Ministers persist in saying that they will pursue yet more publicity campaigns. Why? Again, I have no idea, because clearly publicity campaigns alone are not the answer.
	What is more astonishing is the press release that the DWP put out when it did the first publicity campaign. It said:
	"Some pensioners are missing out on a 100 per cent. refund because they are tearing up their Council Tax Bills."
	What a crazy statement. When this hits the most vulnerable in our community hardest, it is the responsibility of Ministers to ensure that money owed to groups such as pensioners is given back. The money belongs to the pensioners'; end of story. It is not the Chancellor's; it is not any Government Department's; it is not the local authorities'; it is the pensioners'. Pensioners should not have to fill out 40-page forms of irrelevant questions to get what is owed to them. It should just be given back. Pensioners paid the money in; now the Government should give it back.
	The 40-page forms should be scrapped. At the most there should be a tick box on the council tax form or on the pension credit paperwork, not 40 pages of paperwork. It should not be the responsibility of local authorities to do this. They have not got the money; the Chancellor has. They did not take the money; the Chancellor did. Publicity campaigns are not working. Too much council tax relief is going unclaimed.
	This is the second time that I have put this Bill before Parliament. This is the second time that I have received cross-party support for the Bill. This is the second time that I have been told by the Government that they are dealing with the problem when the problem remains. Enough is enough. It is time that Ministers ended the lottery of council tax benefit. Pensioners are entitled to this money. It cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to ensure that this huge sum of unclaimed council tax benefit goes to those who need it—pensioners who are entitled to it. I have pleasure in introducing the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Baldry, Tom Brake, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Dr. Hywel Francis, Mr. Jeremy Hunt, Mr. Boris Johnson, Grant Shapps, and Mr. Edward Vaizey.

Nick Ainger: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) gave the hon. Gentleman a copy of my letter of 17 January and the attachments thereto, but there will be a clear indication in the attached memorandums of what such Measures will cover, the reasons behind them, the policy development and so on. I am pretty certain that pre-legislative scrutiny will be able to tease out any other issues that may not have been fully explained in the explanatory memorandum. I am also pretty certain that the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee or any other Committee of this House would be able to establish whether they were getting a pig in a poke. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured on that point.
	Amendments Nos. 122, 123, 181, 53 and 54 relate to the role of the Secretary of State. Much has been made of the fact that the Secretary of State has discretion whether to lay a draft legislative competence order—or an Order in Council—before both Houses, but that position is perfectly reasonable and rational. As I explained earlier, these proposals will not come out of the blue. Normally, the preliminary draft Orders in Council and the explanatory material that will accompany the draft would reflect the outcome of discussions between the Welsh Assembly Government and the UK Government, so that issues of scope, clarity and vires would have been thoroughly thought through before even the preliminary draft was laid before Parliament for pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The Secretary of State should be cast not in the role of Napoleon, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) implied, but genuinely as an honest broker. It would in any event be unreasonable to force the Secretary of State to lay before the House a draft order that he or she felt was defective, unworkable or premature. The provisions will ensure not only that the proposals that are put before Parliament are properly prepared but that the Government's view on them is clear.
	In new clause 4, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) proposes that the Assembly or Counsel General should be able to refer to the Supreme Court any decision by the Secretary of State to refuse to lay a draft Order in Council before each House of Parliament, so that the Supreme Court could decide whether such a decision was reasonable and intra vires. I do not believe that such a provision is necessary. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State to give notice of his reasons for refusing to lay the draft Order in Council. That, in itself, is a powerful incentive to any Secretary of State to ensure that he or she has good reasons for any refusal to lay such a draft. The Assembly and the public at large would know the Secretary of State's reasons for refusing.

David Davies: I appreciate that the Minister is attempting to reassure us that the Secretary of State would never turn down an application for political reasons, but although that might be the present intention, the Bill as drafted allows the Secretary of State for Wales, now or in future, to turn down a Measure for political reasons, if he or she wishes to. I cast no aspersions on the present Secretary of State when I say that although that might be the present intention, if the wording of the Bill is not amended, it might not necessarily be what happens in future.

Nick Ainger: Mr. Benton, I welcome you to the Chair. Clause 95 gives a specific power to the Counsel-General and the Attorney-General to make a reference to the Supreme Court, where they would like a decision on whether a particular matter specified in a proposed Order in Council actually relates to a field listed in part 1 of schedule 5.
	We think that this should be a power for the Counsel-General or Attorney-General to exercise, because it is all about legal interpretation. Does the matter, as described in the proposed Order in Council, actually relate to a field as set out in part 1 of schedule 5? In most cases, it should be clear whether a matter relates to a specified field or not, so in most cases it will not be necessary to use this power. However, in the less clear-cut cases, the Counsel-General or Attorney-General will need to make a judgment as to whether a decision is required from the Supreme Court so that there is clarity on whether a matter is relevant or not.
	On a technical point, the Assembly will be an unincorporated association of 60 members. As such the Assembly itself could not institute proceedings in court, but it is possible that the Assembly Commission could act on its behalf. However, that is just a technical point. On the principle that I think the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) is proposing, I still believe that it is inappropriate and unnecessary for a legal representative of the Assembly, as a legislature, to have such a role. The Counsel-General would be acting to represent Welsh devolution interests in proceedings involving devolution issues. It would seem odd to have two people able to carry out this role.
	The position of Counsel-General means that there is someone with status similar to that of Attorney-General—this touches on the points that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made—to represent devolution interests in proceedings. Opposition Members should welcome the fact that the Bill creates a post that can represent Welsh devolution interests in proceedings. But the provisions in the Bill correspond with provisions made with respect to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	The Counsel-General's appointment will have to meet with the approval of the Assembly, which should also enable the Assembly to signal that it has confidence in that person's ability to represent Welsh interests.

Nick Ainger: I assume, bearing in mind that the Counsel-General is a member of the Welsh Assembly Government, that when he is approached—we are talking about whether an Order in Council fits in with part 1 of schedule 5—he will be open in giving his opinion as to whether he thought that it did or did not fit in.
	I hope that I have answered the point that the hon. Member raised in his amendment. I hope that I have been able to reassure him that the amendments are not necessary, that the Counsel-General will be able to ensure that advice is given to the Assembly and that if there is a question as to whether the issue relates to part 1 of schedule 5, he will refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

David Mundell: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in page 52, line 11, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
	This is a probing amendment. I accept, before the Minister tells me, that "must" would be overly prescriptive, but the explanatory notes are, unfortunately, simply a replication of the clause and it would therefore be helpful if the Minister were able to set out the criteria that would define "may" as it currently appears in the clause.

David Mundell: I am disappointed that we did not get an example, or a definition of the criteria that would cause the process to be used. On other occasions on which the provisions in the Bill have not been entirely clear, the Minister has helpfully set out examples. Given where we are in our proceedings, I shall not press the matter further, but it would be helpful if the Minister were able to identify more fully the circumstances in which the process would be used. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Hywel Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 52, line 21, at end insert
	', or
	(c) by any committee of the Assembly established under section 28 or section 30.'.
	Clause 96(1)(a) and (b) provide that an Assembly Measure may be introduced to the Assembly
	"by the First Minister, any . . . Minister . . . any Deputy . . . Minister or the Counsel General, or . . . by any other Assembly member."
	The amendment would add to that list any Committee of the Assembly. It is a probing amendment, but I hope that the Minister will respond to a couple of points.
	Committees fulfil an important function in the Assembly. They are potentially a resource of great expertise and, in fulfilling their scrutiny function, they will be familiar with the detail of issues and in a good position to be innovative in their thinking. Any Measure proposed by a Committee would still be subject to all the scrutiny procedures that would apply to Measures proposed by Ministers or Back Benchers, but such a Measure would have all the advantages of having been scrutinised in detail beforehand by Members from all parties who would have reached a consensus. The Measure would be all the better for it.I hardly need remind the Committee that cross-party consensus is a prized commodity when promoting legislation. If, for some reason, a consensus had not been reached, the Assembly and, I daresay, this place and the other place could draw their own conclusions when giving the Measure further consideration.
	It may be argued that the role of Committees is to hold the Government to account, but it is also their role to contribute to policy development. Committees will need to be reactive to the Government's legislative priorities, but it has been said that it is necessary
	"to strike a proper balance between doing things that are the Government's agenda and setting your own agenda."
	That quotation comes from evidence given to the National Assembly's Committee on the Better Governance of Wales White Paper—its report was published in September last year—by the Clerk to the House of Commons. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is an excellent recommendation.
	As Professor McAllister said, also in that report, we should see
	"policy development and scrutiny as part of the same linear equation".
	Hon. Members' grasp of algebra might be as variable as mine, but her point is clear. This amendment is based on solid experience. There have been several Scottish examples of Committees being successful in generating legislation, as was shown in the report. That was also the case in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the past. The process works and has proven useful. That is one reason why the National Assembly Committee recommended that Committees should be able to propose Measures. We endorse that view and invite other hon. Members to support us.

Nick Ainger: It may assist Opposition Members if I say that I agree that it may in some circumstances be appropriate for an Assembly Committee to propose an Assembly Measure. For that reason, the Bill does not prevent Committees from doing so. Clause 96 ensures that Ministers and individual Members have the right to propose Measures, subject to the provision of Standing Orders. However, there is nothing to prevent Standing Orders from providing that Committees may also propose Measures. It is appropriate for the Assembly's Standing Orders to make any provision relating to the proposal of Measures that is additional to the minimum provision in clause 96. The amendment is not therefore necessary and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Dominic Grieve: Clause 97 will regulate proceedings on proposed Assembly Measures. Subsection (1) provides that there should be a threefold procedure in the Assembly: a vote on general principles, an opportunity for the Assembly to consider Assembly Measures in detail—I take that to be a Committee or Report stage, adapted, obviously, due to the number of Members of the Assembly—and a final stage at which a proposed Assembly Measure can be passed or rejected. However, I am worried about subsection (2), which states:
	"Subsection (1) does not prevent the standing orders making provision to enable the Assembly to expedite proceedings in relation to a particular proposed Assembly Measure."
	There is a meeting of minds to the extent that part 3 of the Bill is not the same as part 4. Part 4 would, after a referendum, give the Assembly the legislative power to get on with it, for better or worse, but part 3 allows the Assembly to undertake detailed scrutiny of legislation in a procedure under which we retain, by virtue of the Order in Council, overall responsibility for the process. If that is indeed what we are doing, I have considerable anxiety about whether subsection (2) is appropriate because it provides a mechanism whereby the Assembly, having been given power by the Order in Council that we had enacted, could enact the Assembly Measure without giving it the consideration that is the very justification for granting the power in the first place.
	The situation is quite different from that under part 4. I have tabled an amendment that is similar to amendment No. 170 to part 4, but that is a probing amendment because my attitude to part 4 is rather different. I understand that if we are transferring legislative functions to an independent body, it is not for us to start telling it how to carry out its business. However, the Government are announcing to the people of Wales that part 3 offers a hybrid procedure under which the House retains control, but detailed scrutiny is carried out by the Assembly so that the minutiae can be threshed out in a way that provides better legislation for the Welsh people. It is thus astonishing that subsection (2) provides a loophole under which the Assembly could decide not to carry out adequate scrutiny.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my right hon. Friend and cannot imagine such a circumstance. The process under part 3 that must be followed to get the Order in Council, including the delay periods, shows that Assembly Measures are hardly the material of urgent business, so it is difficult to understand why subsection (2) is needed at all.
	I hope that the Minister will accept that I say sincerely that subsection (2) is an invitation to possible conflict. Someone could decide to short-circuit the process, and the difficulty would be that the poor old Secretary of State would have to decide whether to apply his veto because hon. Members would make representations to suggest that the whole matter had not been considered by the Welsh Assembly and that full scrutiny had thus not been carried out.
	I look forward to hearing the explanation for subsection (2) from the Minister. There is justification for including such a provision in part 4, if it is ever to be implemented, but I do not understand the justification for including it in part 3. If I understand the Government's position correctly—let me leave aside the question of whether I agree with the principle of the process—they are offering the reassurance that the people of Wales will get better governance because the Welsh Assembly will have more time to flesh out the details of a principle that has been approved by the House. However, subsection (2) is a mechanism by which the Government say that if the Welsh Assembly wishes to circumvent that principle, it may do so.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's response because unless it is adequate, we might well wish to pursue this important matter—on Report, if not now. However, I do not want to provoke a conflict at this stage because even though I am not wildly happy with part 3 of the Bill, I want to improve it.
	Amendments Nos. 171 to 173 are probing amendments that relate largely to the same point: the Standing Orders for private proposed Assembly Measures. The House has different procedures and Standing Orders for its consideration of private measures, so I understand that the Welsh Assembly would need different procedures, too. However, private proposed Assembly Measures would still need to be considered fully. We must not have a situation in which that process can be short-circuited. Although I accept that there must be a mechanism for a separate system, the amendments reinforce the point that I am making about subsection (2).

Nick Ainger: This has been an interesting and, hopefully, brief debate. Clause 97(2) enables the Assembly, in its Standing Orders, to provide for the circumstances in which a particular proposed Measure can come before the Assembly and be taken through a procedure that is different from that set out in clause 97(1). As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, there is an equivalent provision in clause 110(2), as regards Bills in the Assembly.
	I am sympathetic to the concern that we ensure that all Assembly Measures receive proper scrutiny, but clause 97(2) does not circumvent that. Instead, it recognises that there may be circumstances in which the Assembly's standard scrutiny procedures would not be appropriate because the Measure concerned deals with a matter that requires urgent attention. Animal health, such as foot and mouth, is an example of that. The circumstances would arise when the Assembly has already been given powers to legislate by this place. If a foot and mouth outbreak, or another animal health issue, required it to legislate quickly, clause 97(2) would allow it to truncate the process, as we have done on occasion.
	I imagine that the Assembly's Standing Orders set out the time between its equivalent of our Second Reading, Committee stage, and Report and Third Reading—the same stages as we go through. The Standing Orders could be amended to allow the scrutiny process to take place over one or two days. That is sensible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we have included the provision for those purposes. It will be used on rare occasions, but it would be wrong for the Standing Orders not to set out proceedings in which the Assembly can address urgent issues.

Nick Ainger: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but there may well be a need for the Assembly to take advantage of the permission, given by this place, to legislate not just in secondary legislation but, in effect, through its Measures system. I would be surprised—it would be illogical and, possibly, irresponsible—if those Standing Orders did not allow for emergency legislation to be enacted by the Assembly.

Elfyn Llwyd: Given that the Minister is unable to give an example, apart from animal health, why not leave it to the Assembly to create its own Standing Orders? Why do we need to tell it what to do? The clause says "must include" so and so. It is prescriptive and tells the Assembly what to do. [Interruption.] On any reading, that is what it says.

Nick Ainger: Subsection (2) states:
	"Subsection (1) does not prevent the standing orders making provision to enable the Assembly to expedite proceedings in relation to a particular proposed Assembly Measure."
	We are not telling it how to do it; we are just giving it permission to change its Standing Orders, in whatever way it wants, so that it can expedite a Measure. We are not being prescriptive in that respect. We are allowing the Assembly, under its Standing Orders, to address the problem that I set out. We are putting in the Bill the provision for the Assembly to come up with its own solution, through its Standing Orders, to the need to introduce urgent legislation.

Dominic Grieve: At the risk of being pernickety, the wording of subsection (5), and the use of the expression
	"the text need not be in both languages",
	does not cover the possibility of the text being in Latin, because it is not one of the two languages specified? In those circumstances, the Minister would have to amend the legislation to say that the text does not have to be in either language, but some other?

Elfyn Llwyd: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 125, 158 and 126, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friends.
	The reason why the amendments have been tabled is very simple. The first amendment would deal with subsection (1)(a), which says:
	"if a proposed Assembly Measure contains provisions which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe—
	(a) would have an adverse effect on any matter which is not specified in Part 1 of Schedule 5".
	That is terrifically broad to a point that it is almost nonsense. I hope that in responding the Minister will give us some detail, because in the hands of an unsympathetic Secretary of State it could be a tool to stamp on the Assembly and prevent it from proceeding in its normal democratic way. The notes on clauses are more obtuse than usual, so there is no help there. I press the Minister for as much detail as possible on that paragraph. I am sure that he will do his best to enlighten us in due course.
	Amendment No. 126 relates to paragraph (c), which effectively gives the Secretary of State the same veto. It refers to whether a Measure
	"would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies in England".
	Again, my objection is that that is nebulous. We would like to know more. From all the various reports and the notes on clauses that I have read, I have seen nothing of any great help. The provision is extremely broad and, again, an unsympathetic holder of the office could easily pray in aid such a power to prevent any legislation.
	By far the most concerning is paragraph (b), which is the subject of amendment No. 158. For the record, I shall read the paragraph. It also provides for a veto and would come into effect where any Measure might have
	"a serious adverse impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England".
	I remember as a young boy going with my father to Tryweryn. I have the honour to represent that area now, and I shall deal briefly with the history of the drowning of the valley. I know some of the displaced people from the Tryweryn valley, and I know that never again will the people of Wales stand for such undemocratic, Mugabe-type dealings. Every single Member of Parliament from Wales was against the drowning of the valley, but it went ahead. I hope that we will never see such an event again, because I do not know what would happen, but this clause would enable it, and that is my concern.
	The provision has touched a raw nerve, not just among people such as myself who support Plaid Cymru but among others, because once more they can see potential for conflict. The paragraph clearly refers to water resources in England, and I can easily envisage that in some years from now somebody might consider that there is a need to drown another valley in Wales. As that would be such a large planning operation, it would come under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and then bypass the planning procedures in the Assembly. The Government could rely on that paragraph, among others, to ensure that the plan went ahead, whatever the view of the Welsh Assembly, which would be expressing the view of the Welsh people.
	We have experienced that once already. I know families who were displaced and who still live in the Bala area. Most of the elderly people have now passed away, but some remain; their wounds are still open and they still feel a great deal of hurt. Subsection (1)(b) therefore touches a very raw nerve.

Elfyn Llwyd: While I am at it, I shall quote the Conservative leader in Wales. He said:
	"I find this clause odd. Things like this show the Secretary of State for Wales has the powers of a colonial governor and we are not being treated as grown-ups."
	Plaid Cymru's Assembly deputy leader said:
	"We don't want a Secretary of State telling us what we should do with our water. I thought the whole point of devolution was to transfer power from London to the democratically elected 60 Members of the National Assembly."
	If the hon. Lady's reading of paragraph (b) is correct, her colleagues in the National Assembly and hon. Members here—myself included—will take some comfort from that; but my ordinary reading of it suggests that it goes far broader than she has implied. It seems to me that a future Welsh Government could say, for whatever reason, that they were not willing to accept further valley drownings, and be overruled. My reading of the provision might not be correct, but that is my understanding.
	When the Government were asked to comment on the provision in Wales on Sunday, the Wales Office spokesman said only:
	"It is a fallback provision, and would only ever be used in extreme circumstances."
	That being so, may I ask the Minister what he means by "extreme circumstances"? If they include closing off the water supply or, worse still, fouling the water supply, does not the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 deal with them? We are owed a better explanation. I ask the Minister to give us examples of extreme circumstances and to tell the Committee that my reading of the clause is wrong and that it would not allow Parliament to override the democratic view of the National Assembly if it decided against another valley being drowned.

Chris Ruane: Name him!

Nick Ainger: Let us examine the hypothetical case that the hon. Gentleman has raised, in which the Assembly said that there would be no increase in the amount of water available. As I read clause 100(1)(b), such a proposal would have a serious adverse impact on water resources, water supply or the quality of water in England. The proposal does not specify an increase; it describes the current situation and states that it should not be made any worse. Hon. Members were seeking an example of an Assembly Measure would have such an impact, but I cannot think of one. However, there might be a measure affecting a major forestry issue, for example, that would have an impact on the water resources that are supplied to England. The provision might apply in that kind of area.
	I repeat that this does not involve something being done to Wales. It would involve an Assembly Measure that was being introduced. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to the drowning of valleys, but I just cannot see how that would relate to the circumstances to which these requirements refer.

David Davies: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I was not in the House at that time—but surely he recognises that the situation in Northern Ireland is unique, and that Governments, particularly the last Conservative Government and the present Labour Government, had been trying to overcome a very difficult situation to bring peace there. It is unfair for the hon. Gentleman to use that as an example of a referendum framework that could be repeated elsewhere. A better example would be something like entry into the European Union, where there is scope for a further referendum that might change the direction of our European policy at some point in the future.

Cheryl Gillan: To equate Northern Ireland with Wales or Scotland is to misunderstand the situation entirely. I have a question for the hon. Gentleman: does he, and his party, believe that there should be the same voting system and the same constitutional arrangements in Ireland, Wales and Scotland? That is where his argument is leading.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Lady says that I am making a false equation between the two situations, and that I do not fully understand them. I humbly suggest that in the nine years that I have been speaking on Northern Ireland matters on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, in the various debates that I have had on exactly this point I may have picked up one or two salient points regarding the comparisons that I make. In fairness, I must recognise that the hon. Lady did not take part in those debates, but the Secretary of State for Wales, coincidentallyand, on this occasion, helpfully, I thinkcan provide his own perspective, if he is the Minister who will respond to the amendments. I suspect that he will agree with me that there is no fundamental difference in having a significant referendum on constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland and having a significant referendum on constitutional arrangements in Wales.
	As for the hon. Lady's second point, the issue at stake is not whether there is a difference of principle, but whether in WalesI shall focus on Wales for the momentit is acceptable to give the Welsh people one chance, and if the answer is no, to terminate any prospect of developing the devolution process further.
	I was not sympathetic to the idea of having a referendum in the first place. However, that is not the main point with this string of amendments, so notwithstanding that, I shall turn to the comments made by the Father of the House, who paraphrased me and suggested that I had said, We can go forward, but we can't go back. Actually, that is not far from what I said. More to the point, it is exactly what the leader of his party, the Prime Minister, has said; he said that he had no reverse gear. He has also said that every time that he has initiated a reform, he wishes that he had gone further. [Interruption.]
	I hear howls of woe from the Government Benches, suggesting a rebellion among the Labour MPs from Wales who are here. I understand that they may not be happy with this. Nevertheless, my understanding is that if we initiate some constitutional changes, we must make the assumption that, the principle having been set, there will be an evolutionary process that goes with it.
	The Father of the House is entirely justified in taking a different view. It is a difference of judgement. However, on behalf of myself and the Liberal Democrats, I would summarise the situation by saying that once the devolution process has been set in motion, there will be a momentum within it that will militate in favour of giving more powers to the Welsh Assembly, rather than stalling at some fairly arbitrary point by putting a cap on the number of referendums that can take place.
	I understand the case for having some kind of structure and timetable governing the frequency of referendums. I am less unsympathetic to the attempt, rudimentary as it may be, in a couple of the amendments that have been tabled on that basis, because that more closely reflects the situation in Northern Ireland. However, the Liberal Democrats are not very keen on having a referendum on this matter at all, because we think that it is acceptable and appropriate for us to assume that the Welsh Assembly should have the same kind of powers as Scotland. I do not need to dwell on that, because we had a fairly significant debate on that subject yesterday in the context of changing the name from the Welsh Assembly to the Welsh Senedd.
	In conclusion, I understand that there is a genuine difference of view. I believe that there is a contradiction between the way in which the Conservatives are approaching this piece of legislation and their approach to Northern Ireland legislation. I believe that that comparison is valid, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.

Hywel Francis: We are discussing Wales, not Northern Ireland, which is another matter.
	My Committee highlighted the concern to which I just referred and it recommended that, should a first referendum return a no vote, a subsequent one should not be held for a further two National Assembly terms. We believe that that is perfectly reasonable. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I approach this issue as an enthusiast of devolution. That may sound contradictory, but I believe that we have to show respect for the decisions taken by the people of Wales, and to give some time for reflection. I shall develop that point in a moment.
	Both the Secretary of State and the First Minister acknowledge that, if a first referendum failed to deliver a yes result, a period of reflection would be necessary. Similarly, they are both of the view that a no result would put the issue off the agenda in Wales for a very long time. I agree with that view, as did my Committee, but I do not agree with the Government that the provisions already contained in the Bill are sufficient to prevent short-term repeated referendums, even if undertaken only as a political exercise. My amendment, which was inspired by the Welsh Affairs Committee's recommendations, would ensure that short-term repeated referendums could not happen. It would set a time limit within which a subsequent referendum could not be helda further two Assembly general elections.
	My amendments have two benefits. First, those in favour of granting primary powers, those against doing so, and the Welsh public at largebe they indifferent or undecidedwould be clear about the implications of a no result. Such information is important if an informed decision is to be made.

Dai Havard: I have a particular view on referendums. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on them. I do not really like them as a basic idea, but we are in the historical situation that, since Harold Wilson's day, on constitutional issues we have devised the mechanisms of referendums. Sometimes we have done so for reasons of political expediency, but they have become part of the fabric.
	Interestingly enough, there were thresholds in the referendums that were held in the 1970s. Some say that referendums should not be provided for in the Bill. I say that it is important that the Bill contains a measure that institutionalises the fact that if we are to have primary powers, we will have to have a referendum. There are those who would not want to have one even at that stage. That was part of some of the discussion that surrounded the Richard commission and so on. There were people who wanted to proceed without such a mechanism. We have to go back to the people.
	Those who forget where the last referendums were would do well to go and revisit them. Let us be clear. Only half of the electorate turned out, and only half of those who did voted yes. So, in the words of Antonio Gramsci, we have to temper our enthusiasm with the pessimism of the intellect. We had better not run too far ahead of the people on these questions.
	Interestingly enough, I remember the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) is a member. It was a unanimous report. It was certainly no minority report.

David Davies: I was one of the people who was involved in that last referendum, very much on the anti side. It is my experience that a significant number of people in Wales then and now want primary legislative powers. It is also fair to say, and I hope that everyone recognises, that a large number of people in Wales preferred the status quo and believed that Wales best played out its destiny as an integral part of the United Kingdom. I was one of those people; I was proud to be Welsh and proud to be British; proud to be a Welsh Unionist, if you like.
	Many people in my situation are disappointed that the door effectively has been slammed shut on any change in the constitutional direction. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire seems to think that we should never change direction constitutionally; that we can never make mistakes. Perhaps I may remind my two Liberal Democrat colleagues that one of the biggest constitutional changes this country has ever made was to get rid of the monarchy. The experiment lasted only 11 years. We recognised that we had made a mistake and we went back in the other direction. It is a shame that we slammed the door on doing that in Wales.

David Davies: Time is short and I shall not go over my views again and again. Suffice it to say that I have not changed my mind. I am one of many people in Wales who did not want the Welsh Assembly, but unlike those who want a Parliament I accept the situation as it is. I accept that we have an Assembly and I want to see it work, but I cannot accept a situation in which those who want primary legislative powers can come back over and over again, with one referendum after another, until they get the result that they want. That is why I support the amendments.

Peter Hain: For the reasons that I am about to explain to my right hon. Friend and the House.
	The amendments are an attempt to address the perceived risk that repeat referendums could be held on the commencement of Assembly Act provisions. I do not think that an explicit provision is required to stop repeat referendums, whether that is of the type proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), or that proposed by the Conservative party, because the Bill provides for an environment of consensus. Hon. Members who have spoken do not seem to have recognised that a two-thirds majority of the Assembly would be required. I have been criticised for insisting on a two-thirds majority, and ardent advocates of primary powers say that it will create an obstacle. I make no apology for the proposal because I do not consider it to be an obstacle.
	If we are going to go for a referendum, it makes elementary political sense to say that we must be satisfied that the conditions are at least those that existed in 1997, with Welsh Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymruand probably sections of the Welsh Conservativesbeing in favour of a referendum and full primary law-making powers. The two-thirds majority is an essential check on whether there is consensus. In addition, a vote in the House and the House of Lords will be required, so Parliament will have to endorse that position. The idea that a series of referendums could be called one year after anotherQuebec-styleis not realistic given the need for a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and a vote in the House of Commons and House of Lords. My answer to the fair question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West is thus that a process of caution is build into the Bill.
	A further point, albeit not a decisive one, would be in the background and could figure in public debate. Referendums are costly. It is estimated that a referendum would cost about 7 million, which is another reason why the people of Wales would revolt at the idea of continual referendums. History teaches us the political reality. When the referendum was lost in 1979, it took until 1997 to create the conditions in which it was felt that there was consensus to move again. We do not need legislation on the matter because it would put rigid barriers in the way of the politics. We and the people of Wales want politics to reflect the centre of gravity of Welsh politics, which is where I humbly believe that the Bill is situated.
	The problem with amendment No. 189 is that it would throw away the key for the future. In that spirit, I hope that the hon. Lady withdraws it and that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon will not push his amendments to a vote. There are sufficient locks to require political consensus to be created, through a two-thirds vote in the Assembly initially, and then with this House and the House of Lords having the final say. I do not think that Parliament would stand for continuous referendums to bully people into voting yes, even if the Assembly repeatedly requested them. There is no support for that in the House and I, as the Secretary of State responsible for introducing the Bill, would have no truck with it.

Cheryl Gillan: We have had an interesting debate, which has gone on longer than I anticipated because of the significant contributions by some hon. Members. Deferring to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) summed up the situation well. The Secretary of State is a man in a hurry. He does not want to wait. In a devastating critique, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West outlined that there is an element of political opportunism. What came through was that the Secretary of State is not showing any duty of care to the people of Wales by allowing the Bill to stand in the form that is before us. What I derived from the Father of the House's contribution is that this is an experiment with the constitutional position of Wales, which is not advisable and will do no good.
	The fact that the Secretary of State was invited to place papers in the Library and papers were there none is also fairly significant. The consultation appeared to be only within the party and not with the public. That also goes some way to revealing the mindset behind the Bill.
	I shall touch only briefly on the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), because his contribution was not one of his best. However, I want to defend him. The Secretary of State was unnecessarily cruel in his taunting. It is understandable that his arguments were not be as comprehensive as usual in the circumstances.

Cheryl Gillan: I am happy to receive it because fortunately I am not running for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats, although I might make a better job of it than some other people.
	As Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) has done a sterling job in difficult circumstances. I do not think that his Committee was fully consulted by the Secretary of State. I certainly do not think that it has been taken along in the process. He approaches the problem from a different dimension. Whereas the right hon. Member for Swansea, West may not be a great enthusiast for devolution, the hon. Gentleman is, but even he has problems with the way in which the Bill stands.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in the bravura performance that we have come to expect, made the points in his inimitable fashion. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) was tempted to participate in the debate. He said that we must not run too far ahead of the people. I agree entirely. I was delighted that he participated because we have not been treated to many contributions by the Labour Members who represent Welsh constituencies. It was good to see the hon. Gentleman making a contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) said that the proposals would make Wales a political football, and he was quite right.
	I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State. He says that nothing will happen until 2011it might be some time after thatbut he is trying to legislate today. He also said that there might be a period when Westminster was in conflict with Cardiff; I am not entirely sure that Westminster is not in conflict with Cardiff at the moment, but I do not want to intrude on the private agonies of the Labour party. But that is no excuse for bringing forward this legislation. I do not accept his arguments.
	I see, rather, a strange consensus. He said that he wanted consensus, and he has it; from Swansea, West, from Suffolk, Coastal, from Aberavon, from, I think, Merthyr Tydfil, and from Chesham and Amersham. Therefore, I have no choice but to put my amendment to the vote in order to place on record our belief that the Bill should not provide the opportunity for repeat referendums and for turning Wales into a political football. By not acceding to any of the amendments that I or the hon. Member for Aberavon have tabled, the Secretary of State has brought this vote on himself.

Adam Price: Amendment No. 131 seeks to give the National Assembly for Wales the right and responsibility of setting the wording on any future referendum under the provisions of clause 102. As the Library has pointed out, it is unusual for the wording of a referendum question not to be set out in a Bill. Indeed, there is only one other example of this not happening. We had a lengthy discussion recently on the uniqueness of Wales vis--vis Northern Ireland. Only in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is there another example of the wording not being set out in the legislation.
	The Conservative amendment, which we do not support, would provide the opposite solution to ours, namely that the wording should be set out by Parliament. We believe that the people of Wales should decide on these matters, and that their representatives should decide on the wording of the question in a referendum on the extension of the principle of democratic sovereignty. As we know, timing is a key parameter of success when it comes to calling a referendum. We had a lengthy discussion on such issues in our debate on the last few amendments.
	The other key parameter is the wording on the referendum ballot paper, which can influence the likelihood of success. As opinion pollsters know, the wording of a question can affect the level of support that a proposal attracts. We have seen that in relation to questions of devolution over the years. I would suggest that a question asking the people of Wales whether the National Assembly for Wales should have law-making powers would be more likely to succeed than a question asking whether it should have more power, in an open-ended way. These are subtle differences, but they can affect the likelihood of success.
	The referendum in question, as with every other referendum, will be subject to the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which will mean that the Electoral Commission will pronounce on the intelligibility of the question and produce a report, according to its guidelines, to ensure that the question is clear, concise and impartial. Nevertheless, the power to set the wording of the referendum question is an important one, and it should properly reside with the elected representatives in the national representative institution of the people of Walesthe National Assemblywhich is what our amendment seeks to achieve.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee's report suggested that the wording should be set out in the Bill in the interests of clarity. However, the Government's response rejected that proposal, saying, rather mysteriously, that the wording should reflect the circumstances and the timing of the question's being put. That almost suggests that the referendum might happen in some future century, when the English and Welsh languages might have evolved in some way. The Government's response proves my point that subtle differences can be introduced into the wording of a question. The power to set the wording is therefore an important one.
	The other issue that the Welsh Affairs Committee was trying to resolve in its way, and that we are trying to resolve in ours, is that of the lack of clarity as to how the wording will be decided. This could become a major political issue. As we have seen, the issue of where the power to decide the wording lies became a major issue in Quebec following the 1995 referendum there. Even now, we can see the jostling between Ottawa and Quebec for the proper constitutional authority over that issue. Ottawa has passed the Clarity Act to give itself the constitutional authority over the wording of any future referendum question, but the Quebec Government insist that they still have that power. We, too, need clarity, because we do not have it at present in this regard.

Alex Salmond: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Arbuthnot commission, appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, considered this very subject. It decided that the attempt to ban dual candidacy was undemocratic, and the work of a political party that did not understand the process.

Adam Price: Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 would remove the absolute veto enjoyed by the other place over the Order in Council setting up the referendum and replace it with a suspensory veto, similar to that which it enjoys over primary legislation under the Parliament Act 1949. There is an important point of principle involved for our party. It would be entirely wrong for an unelected institution to frustrate the will of the Welsh people, as expressed through their directly elected National Assembly, to hold a referendum on the matters contained in the Bill. I hope that some Labour Members agree with that basic principle and will support the idea of democratic sovereignty in that regard.
	The royal commission on reform of the House of Lords proposed replacing the absolute veto over statutory instruments, which is what we are discussing in this instance, with the suspensory veto. It is important to remember that the other place has used its power to reject statutory instruments on a number of occasions. The Secretary of State will remember the famous case involving sanctions against southern Rhodesia in 1968. The House of Lords struck down that order because it supported the white minority Administration in southern Rhodesia. That caused something of a constitutional crisis at the time. However, it has used the power more recently too, during the passage of the Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000, on the issue of Freepost. The other place has shown that it is willing to use its power to strike down statutory instruments in the case of elections. Our fear is that, unless the amendment is accepted, the other place, which is not representative of anything in particularit is certainly not representative of Waleswill use its power in the Bill to frustrate the aspirations of the Welsh people and their representatives to move on to the next phase of democratic devolution. That cannot be right.
	The Under-Secretary said in the Second Reading debate that the Parliament Act would not apply to the legislation, so that cannot be used to protect us against the House of Lords striking down an Order in Council in this context. The Salisbury convention will not apply. All we are left with is the First Minister saying in his evidence that new conventions will develop over time, as is the practice in the British constitution. That provides us with no crumb of comfort as we face the possibility that, having achieved the two thirds bar in the National Assembly that has been set down in the Bill, having achieved the political consensus that the Secretary of State refers to constantly, and having achieved an affirmative vote in this House of directly elected Members, we will be frustrated by the unelected Chamber down the corridor. That would be entirely unacceptable and against every honourable radical tradition in Welsh politics.
	We appeal to the Government and to hon. Members to think again about giving the House of Lords an absolute veto in this regard. If a suspensory veto is good enough as regards every other piece of primary legislation, surely it is good enough when we are talking about the historic decision and proposal emanating from elected representatives of the people of Wales to move on to the next phase of democratic devolution.
	The First Minister in his speech in the National Assembly for Wales said that he did not believe that there would be any circumstances where the Order in Council procedure, whether it were in relation to the referendum or to other aspects of the Bill, would be used to frustrate the will of the Assembly, because to do that would be to
	expose yourself to ridicule, and you would pay the penalty at the next election.
	That argument may apply to the Secretary of State and to the Commons, but it expressly does not apply to the unelected, unaccountable and often unpredictable House of Lords. We cannot expect the House of Lords simply to accede to the demands of this place and the National Assembly in that regard. As Lord Morgan pointed out in his evidence to the National Assembly Committee on Better Governance for Wales White Paper, the House of Lords came very close to throwing out, purely adventitiously, the Health (Wales) Bill. Heeding the clarion callthe bugle callall the Tory peers appeared just before the vote on the hunting ban was taken. They were there and they came very close to striking down the Wales legislation. Surely everything in our political traditions in Wales should tell us that we cannot trust the other place to have the final say on whether we can move on to the next phase in democratic devolution.
	In closing, I shall quote the Secretary of State. This is what he called the House of Lords, which in this Bill he is giving the final say over democratic devolution:
	a rather fey survivor from the pre-democracy days; it is a constitutional dinosaur . . . Unelected peers reflect an elitist state, which is one of the most unaccountable and secretive in the democratic world. It wields power by a combination of the royal prerogative, massive patronage and centralisation, with only a nod towards democracy.[Official Report, 31 March 1993; Vol. 222, c. 35759.]
	The right hon. Gentleman must have had better speech writers in those daysbut surely the principles that he enunciated in that speech are the same today. The House of Lords should not have a veto over whether Wales moves forward to democratic devolution.

Hywel Francis: Amendment No. 186, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), would limit the role of the Secretary of State to laying a draft order for a referendum, which reflects the recommendation in the Welsh Affairs Committee's report on the White Paper. As things stand, the Secretary of State could refuse to lay the draft order for a referendum even if the National Assembly had voted by a two-thirds majority in favour of holding the referendum. I believe that Parliament alone, not the Government of the day, should accept or reject a request for a referendum.
	I was impressed by what the Secretary of State said in response to earlier amendments about the importance of the sovereignty and primacy of Parliamentand that certainly applies to my amendment. His response to our recent report argued that removing his power of refusal would bypass the Government of the day, but that argument does not stand up. The Government of the day would be able to put forward their position in the debate on the order, and could control the timing of that debate. They would also hold a majority in the House of Commons, which would provide them with the numbers necessary to win a vote. Their views could not and would not be bypassed.
	Ministers also argue that the Government would be
	entitled to test and satisfy itself that the question should be put to the people of Wales.
	I do not understand what form such an additional test would take. Would the Government hold focus groups or phone-ins, or an informal pre-referendum referendum? The necessary test for the referendum trigger is whether two thirds of the Members of the National Assembly for Wales are in favour of a referendum. As the Secretary of State said in another context, such a high threshold would necessitate cross-party support, and would therefore reflect the clear policy view of those partiesand also, surely, the view of those who voted for them.
	Once that test has been satisfied and a request has been made, it should be for Parliament to decide. The Secretary of State is right to say that a move to full legislative competency at the National Assembly would represent a significant constitutional development, but that makes it more important that Parliamentthe sovereign seat of the United Kingdom Governmentrather than the Government of the day, should decide on the merits of the request.
	The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the Government of the day will decide the fate of a request for a referendumbut the Government should have the confidence to make that decision in Parliament, not in Whitehall. For that reason, I ask hon. Members to support my amendment. I am sure that, as a democrat and a supporter of democrat devolution, the Secretary of State will respond positively and wisely to this sensible and modest request. I shall end by quoting the Secretary of State's hero and mine, Aneurin Bevan, on these mattersand I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is listening carefully. Aneurin Bevan said:
	The purpose of getting power is to be able to give it away.

Peter Hain: We are not debating the merits or otherwise of a second Chamber. To be fair, the House of Lords has behaved with great care and responsibility towards Welsh legislation such as the Transport (Wales) Bill, the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill and the various legislation that has gone through Parliament in recent years following bids from the Assembly. I would not expect it to treat Orders in Council in any way differently. Therefore, I do not think it right, in the middle of the debate about the Government of Wales Bill, to aim for a revolutionary change in the relationship between Lords and Commons. That would not be appropriate.
	I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) that the Secretary of State will lay the Order in Council triggering the referendum. The referendum cannot appear suddenly, all on its own. It needs a Secretary of State to lay the Order in Council, and that would present an opportunity for proper questions about the consultation process. That is why we have made the order a requirement: it is not a delaying tactic, but will mean that proper answers must be given to proper questions.
	In any case, the Secretary of State will have to consult the Electoral Commission about the referendum question contained in the draft Order in Council. The commission's report on that question's intelligibility will have to be laid, together with any preceding statement, with that draft order, according to the procedure established by section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that she wanted a procedure that would allow the Order in Council to be amended, by either House or by both. Her amendment is not explicit, but I presume that she would want the Assembly to have the same ability. That would be a recipe for endless ping pong.
	If the Assembly did not have the ability to amend an Order in Council, but was required by the legislation to pass it, we would get it into great difficulties. I hope that the hon. Lady will concede, on reflection, that the 2000 Act contains a procedure that requires the Electoral Commission to be the driving force, along with the Government, on the referendum question. The commission will also, of course, have to consult with the Assembly on that question. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady, and that she will withdraw the amendment.

Mark Tami: Clearly, under his proposal there could be a narrow majority, perhaps of only one. That would be a difficult referendum. What would be his view if a referendum on the future of the Assembly were lost on that basis?

Ian Lucas: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in clause 103, page 57, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert
	'(3) The Secretary of State must
	(a) within the period of 120 days beginning immediately after the day upon which it is received consult upon
	(i) the voting system, and
	(ii) the number of Assembly members
	of an Assembly after the Assembly Act provisions have come into force, and
	(b) within the period of 180 days after the end of the consultation
	(i) lay a draft of a statutory instrument containing on Order in Council under section 102(1) before each House of Parliament, or
	(ii) give notice in writing to the First Minister of the Secretary of State's refusal to do so and the reasons for that refusal.'.
	The amendment relates to the period after the Assembly has voted in favour of moving forward on the proposal to this place for an Order for primary legislative powers. This is an unusual section of the Bill because it addresses a period that most parties agree is some time distant from today. It is not within the contemplationI hopeof the Government to bring forward proposals at this stage for a referendum to introduce the part 4 process. We are therefore talking about a period that is some years hencemy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned 2011-plus.
	In those circumstances, it is appropriate that if we are to consider the position politically at that time, there should be some provision in the process for a broader reflection on the Assembly to take place. The amendment proposes that after the Assembly asks for primary legislative powers there should be a consultation process, so that the people of Wales can be asked two questions relating to the Assembly.
	The first question relates to the voting system for the Assembly. We should not assume that the system that was put in place by the Government of Wales Act 1998 should be set in stone for ever. If we are to have an Assembly with primary legislative powers, we shall have a different creature to the body created by the 1998 Act. It would thus be entirely appropriate at that stage at least to consult the people of Wales on the voting system that should be used to elect the new Assemblyif I may call it that.
	People have extremely different views on the appropriate voting system for the Assembly at present. I am satisfied that the legislative powers for the Assembly that are proposed by the Bill are not so different from the existing powers that they require the system to be reconsidered at the moment. A referendum was held in 1998 and an additional Member system was introduced. When a further referendum is held, there should be at least consultation so that the people of Wales can consider whether it is appropriate to continue with the additional Member system. I have strong views on the matter. The Richard commission put forward several views, and the parties have different views on the system that should used. It would thus be right and proper to ask the question at the time of the referendum.

Tim Yeo: I am delighted to have this chance to raise in Parliament the crisis in the health service in my constituency and in particular the threatened closure of Walnuttree hospital in Sudbury, a highly valued community hospital. The closure of Walnuttree, the loss of its in-patient beds and the ending of many out-patient services, which are at present provided at the hospital, will be devastating for the town and the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposal has been brought forward by the Suffolk West primary care trustwhich I will refer to simply as the trustat a time when the population of both Sudbury and Cornard is planned to grow significantly and when the trust itself has confirmed that Sudbury has the highest level of mortality in the county. The proposal runs directly counter to Government policy, and the way in which the trust has handled it has destroyed the faith of my constituents in the integrity of the consultation process and the decisions that are likely to follow it.
	Walnuttree serves 20,000 people in Sudbury and Cornard and thousands more in the nearby villages. It enjoys very high respect because of the quality of care provided by the dedicated and outstanding staff, many of whom have worked at the hospital for years. However, the hospital buildinga former Victorian workhousehas long been regarded as unsuitable, and it is greatly to the credit of the staff that the patients who have occupied its 68 beds and the people who use the out-patient services rarely if ever complain about the service that they receive. That is in contrast to the experience of some of my constituents in West Suffolk hospital at Bury St. Edmunds, where complaints are, regrettably, not infrequent. Unfortunately, patients who in the past have used Walnuttree will, if it is closed, be forced to go to West Suffolk hospital instead.
	Proposals for a new hospital in Sudbury to replace Walnuttree have been around for 20 years, and recently hopes were high that final approval for its replacement was imminent. It was a shock, therefore, in 2004 when local officials produced an apparently damning fire safety report and used it as a pretext to recommend the hospital's closure. A big local campaign was mounted, with all-party support, to fight that threat. In November 2004, my former Labour opponent, Kevin Craig, and I jointly delivered a 10,000-signature petition to Downing street.
	Great was the relief when that campaign persuaded local officials to see sense and a programme of fire safety work was announced. The then chief executive of Suffolk West primary care trust promised that Walnuttree would remain open until a replacement was built. In February 2005, the outline business plan for that replacement was approved by the strategic health authority. The then Secretary of State for Health wrote to Kevin Craig before the general election and said:
	Kevin . . . you have ensured that the voices of local people have been heard at the highest levels of Government.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer, no less, was quoted in Kevin Craig's election literature congratulating him on his role in that successful campaign. By April 2005, plans for the replacement hospital were well advanced and had been endorsed by a Department of Health gateway review report on the outline business case. Days before the general election, another meeting in Sudbury was assured that the new in-patient hospital would be built prior to the closure of the old site.
	Alas, with the election out of the way and a new chief executive in place at the trust, all those promises were suddenly cast aside. In June, the trust dropped its bombshell: Walnuttree was to be closed after all. No replacement in-patient beds were to be provided, just a glorified GP surgery. Even the in-patient services provided at Walnuttree were to be transferred to West Suffolk hospital 20 miles away.
	The reaction in the town was outrage. Days after the news broke, I chaired one of the biggest public meetings ever held in Sudbury, and the Walnuttree hospital action committee was formed. In July, with other Suffolk Members of Parliament and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I met the Secretary of State, who assured us that the consultation process would be taken seriously. However, the trust's consultation paper, Modernising Healthcare in West Suffolk was a seriously flawed document, which stressed the need for financial savings but suggested only one way of achieving themthrough savage cuts in local services and the closure of Walnuttree.
	Throughout summer and autumn, the community mounted the biggest protest campaign in my constituency in the past 23 years. I pay tribute to the action committee, including its chair, Colin Spence; Michael Mitchell, a porter at the hospital; Michael Mandelstam; the mayor of Sudbury, Lesley Ford-Platt; Richard Titford of Sudbury Churches Together; Sylvia Byham, and Peter Clifford. Those are just a few of the people who have done outstanding work.
	The committee adopted a highly professional approach, raising money to commission an expert study of the proposal and its likely effects, and offering to work with the trust to achieve an outcome that was acceptable to the local community and more consistent with stated Government policy. Regrettably, the trust rebuffed that approach. I much regret that the trust's new chief executive, Mike Stonard, has obstructed the action committee's attempts to find a solution to the problem, to the extent of resorting on occasion to untrue statements and evasions when asked straightforward questions, and casting wholly unjustified aspersions on the integrity of people who are campaigning to protect our health service.
	Truth has, on occasion, flown out of the window during the course of the argument. During Health questions on 22 November last year, I was told by the Secretary of State:
	Walnuttree . . . has already had 300,000 invested in it to bring it up to the standard required by fire safety regulations.[Official Report, 22 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1358.]
	When I challenged that assertion, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), wrote to me on 24 December saying:
	I have noted your comments about the advice given by officials being misleading in relation to the 300,000 spent at the Walnuttree Hospital to bring it up to fire safety regulations. I should point out that I have been assured that this advice is accurate.
	Last week, inquiries made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 revealed that expenditure on fire safety works during 2005 actually amounted to 100,000, not 300,000. The Under-Secretary may like to apologise on behalf of both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for their inadvertent misleading of the House. I hope that the Department will now examine the sources of the incorrect information that it was given.
	The trust's consultation document refers to increased provision of intermediate caresomething that everyone in Suffolk welcomesbut it utterly fails to make even a remotely convincing case for its claim that all those who in the past have received in-patient treatment at Walnuttree can be catered for in the community. Even the trust's own rules define a set of patients as ineligible for care in the community, which includes those without a carer at home, those whose home is unsuitable, those whose needs are too great, and those who do not have the potential for rehabilitation within six weeks. Nor has the trust explained how the cost of all that extra treatment in the community will be met.
	Those proposals will also place a heavy burden on both Suffolk county council social services and on West Suffolk hospital. Unfortunately, in the current yearbefore the trust's proposals come into operationthe social services department already faces an overspend of 2.7 million. Far from being unable to cope with any extra burden, the department is looking for ways to make savings. West Suffolk hospital also faces a cash crisis and is planning to close beds.
	The driver of the trust's proposals is not, as Mike Stonard claims, its desire to introduce an improved model of care. It is all about saving money. So desperate is the crisis that management is breaking all its previous promises and introducing measures that will clearly damage patients. Since it is only about money, why did the trust not consider whether it would be cheaper to keep open the in-patient beds at Walnuttree, as community beds are generally understood to be cost effective?
	The truth is that if the trust wanted to improve services in Sudbury, it would revert to the previous evidence-based successful model of care, which included some in-patient beds at Walnuttree, alongside improved services in the community. Ramming through bed closures by alleging that none of the patients who has used them in the past will in future ever need to be treated anywhere other than at home is absurd. Some patients will be inappropriately left at home to suffer or even die without proper community support. Others, as the trust admits, will have to be accommodated within West Suffolk hospital, aggravating the problem of bed blocking and causing longer waiting lists, in direct contradiction of Government policy.
	As the Audit Commission said in its report, The Way to Go HomeRehabilitation and Remedial Services for Older People,
	there is a danger that in the general confusion around the term 'intermediate care', older people will not receive the care they need.
	Bear in mind that less than a year ago the outline business case proposed, after months of consultation and with widespread local support, a model of care that included 32 new in-patient beds in the new hospital that would replace Walnuttree. What changed between February and June last year to render this model suddenly irrelevant? Not the evidence about patient need. Not the needs of the community. Not the number of people requiring care at Walnuttree. All that changed was the decision of the trust to put the demands of the accountants ahead of the interests of patients.
	Ironically, the letter in which the Minister of State made her inaccurate claim about what had been spent on fire safety included a statement of policy on community hospitals. She stated:
	Our commitment to community hospitals is to support a new generation of community hospitals that can meet the needs of local people.
	I invite the Minister to tell the House this evening that he will instruct the trust to honour that commitment. Or was it, like so many statements from Ministers now, just words, which the Minister never intended should have any real meaning?
	Community hospitals are, after all, not just cheaper and more cost effective for in-patients than acute hospitals; they are closer to home, patient friendly and offer more continuity of care provision. What is more, the Minister of State has boasted of 100 million being available to develop them. What about a fraction of that for Sudbury?
	It is not only in-patients who will suffer. Last year the outline business case included consultant clinics at the replacement hospital. These, too, have disappeared from the trust's plans for Sudbury and will instead be moved to West Suffolk hospital in order to save 40,000 a year. At least in this regard the trust admits that decentralised services can sometimes be more expensive, a factor that it conveniently overlooks when costing the extra intermediate care which it claims will be provided in future.
	Centralising the clinics in West Suffolk hospital will greatly burden the patients who use them. The car journey to West Suffolk hospital from Sudbury takes half an hour at best, costs a significant amount and adds to pollution, including CO 2 emissions. Many elderly patients have no access to a car and will have to make the bus journey of more than an hour, which culminates in a five-minute uphill walk from the bus stop to the hospitalsomething that no one at the hospital was even aware of until I pointed it out.
	I tried the bus journey myself last August and invited the directors of the trust to join me. None did, possibly fearing that first-hand knowledge of what they were planning to inflict on vulnerable patients, who until now have enjoyed a local service, might force them to admit their mistake. Incidentally, patients report that the hospital's own transport service is even worse and can take up to six hours door to door because of the need to collect patients from all over a dispersed rural area.
	Ministers have stressed the Government's commitment to patient choice, but patient choice is not what the trust will provide. Ministers have spoken about care closer to home, but the trust is taking care for many patients further away from home. Not surprisingly, nobody affected by these proposals supports them. The three main GP practices in Sudbury, including one that could benefit if the proposals go ahead, have all rejected them. Rehabilitation clinicians and therapists within the Suffolk West primary care trust have protested internally. The BMA has condemned the plans. Sudbury town council has objected to them. Babergh district council said that the proposals
	are not cost effective and will not deliver increased access to services
	and that they
	will have an adverse impact on Babergh's disabled adaptations budget.
	Suffolk county council passed a motion urging
	the Secretary of State for Health to instruct primary care trusts not to close Community Hospitals until some other means of intermediate care is up and running.
	The local patient and public involvement forum stated that
	the actual proposals appear to be ill-thought out, lack real factual cost justification and in our view are likely to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to those in need.
	Five thousand letters have been sent to the Secretary of State, and 3,500 submissions have been made to the trust. There is not a shred of justification for the proposals. They will harm the population that they are supposed to serve, and they contradict Government policy. Understandably, residents now have little faith in the integrity of the consultation process.
	In East Suffolk, where 90 per cent. of the responses to the consultation, Changing for the better: next steps, criticised the proposals, the agency interpreting the data on behalf of the various trusts commented:
	The consultation questionnaire was assessed to have poorly drafted questions that tended to lead respondents towards an apparently obvious (and negative) answer . . . What little evidence there is suggests the response sample was not representative . . . the health community would be unwise to place excessive weight upon the quantitative views expressed during this consultation.
	Would that have been the reaction if the public had backed the proposals? I fear that when the responses to the Suffolk West primary care trust consultation are analysed, a similar charade will occur. If the questions do not produce the answers that the trust wants, someone will say that they were the wrong questions, and the people who replied to them will not be considered representative. To make matters worse, the Suffolk West primary care trust will soon be abolished, before its bosses have to answer for the damage and suffering that their proposals will be inflicting.
	One final point must be emphasised. Although the trust must bear a big share of the responsibility for what has gone wrong, it is also true that Suffolk West has been disgracefully treated in cash terms by the Department of Health. Serious underfunding from the centre has compounded the problems with which the trust has had to grapple. The tragedy is that, against that background, the solution that the trust proposes will not solve the problem.

Liam Byrne: I shall deal with the question of investment in South Suffolk shortly.
	Those new staff up and down the country have done an enormous amount of work in shortening waiting lists. The number of people receiving treatment in hospital has increased by three quarters of a million to over 5.5 million, up by 16 per cent. since 1997. The total number of people waiting is down by more than 25 per cent., and the number of people waiting for more than three months by more than 50 per cent. The result, quite simply, is the saving of lives. Cancer mortality rates in England are down by 12 per cent., and the mortality rate for circulatory disease in England has fallen by 27 per cent.
	Suffolk has benefited greatly from that advance. The latest figures show that death rates from coronary heart disease in the Suffolk area have fallen by nearly 23 per cent. since 1997. That is not an accident; it has happened because there are 400 more consultants, 4,900 more nurses and 800 more doctors in the strategic health authority area. Those staff have done an enormous amount to cut waiting times, and the results are showing in the most important indicators, the mortality statistics.
	Along with the extra money have come innovations such as the early intervention team that helps West Suffolk hospital to manage new demand; new community matrons; 26 million of investment in Ipswich to create a new critical care suite and planned treatment centre, scheduled to open in 2997; and the launch of a digital hearing aid service, Choose and Book, up and running in east Suffolk ahead of schedule. I could go on and on, but the debate is not about the past. It is about the future, and at the heart of the critique of the hon. Member for South Suffolk were two questions with which I wish to deal, about money and about services.
	An extra 110 million or so has gone into the NHS in Suffolk since 2003. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has received an extra 49 million between 200304 and 20056. I am glad that he raised the issue of fair funding. Fair funding would not have been promoted by the patient's passport, on which he campaigned in his constituency during the election. I am glad that that policy has gone into the bin. The introduction of fair funding is important in Suffolk, because it will raise health funding to the necessary level. Between 200607 and 200708, the total amount of extra money for Suffolk is set to rise by 86 million. There are deficits in some Suffolk trusts, but it is important to note that the level of increased funding for primary care trusts in Suffolk is nearly 2.5 times that of current deficits.
	The pace of change with which funds have been increased is important. The hon. Gentleman said he did not feel that his area had been treated well in the past. In the future, the rate of funding will rise by nearly 21.5 per cent. That is more than the national average, which is just 19.5 per cent.
	At a time when the amount of money is rising, it is important for the local NHS to spend time on getting services right. There are no more important services than those that support older people and those with long-term conditions, not just because they have given their country and their community a lifetime's service but because they are the nation's biggest users of the NHS. Two thirds of NHS acute beds at any one time are occupied by someone over the age of 65, and we believe that about 80 per cent. of NHS costs are spent on the 15 million people with long-term conditions. Services for older people and those with long-term conditions need to be strengthened, in Suffolk as elsewhere. The principles that underpin the current consultation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency must be in line with the policy of transforming emergency care to support the care of both older people and people with long-term conditions closer to home, which is where they want it to be. That means supporting people in their own homes with integrated health and social care teams, often co-ordinated by community matrons, in a model of care that has been successfully introduced elsewhere in the NHS and already exists in many parts of Suffolk. Intermediate care is needed that progresses rehabilitation much faster, enabling people to maintain their independence, so they do not become completely reliant on episodic hospital care.